Why are Muslims against Evolution?!?

[diwana]

Re: Why are Muslims against Evolution?!?

@kaka_in_usa

^^ So it is matter of faith. since you dont have any proof but still believe in it then it has to be your faith in them. uptill here it is fine cuz thats what i am saying too.

but to turn a blind eye towards facts and rejecting is ignorance. science is real, facts are real. evolution can be shown in lab for you to see it. if you still dont believe it then i rest my case.

here is what simple googling brings up
http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/search/topicbrowse2.php?topic_id=46

Sir, ‘evolution’ cannot be proven in lab. Any example?

**Life forms have many shapes and sizes and none of these can be shown to interchange. **

Each species has its own specific genetic structure. With time one species does not change to other. One species has and will continue to be the same.

Adaptation is not evolution…which means change is whole species over time.

Never once anyone has shown that the whole organism became something else, in lab or outside lab.

@Ranjhaa

The very common example used very often to explain evolution at a very micro level is that of bacteria and how it evolves itself to become resistant to various drugs and antibiotics.

That is adaptation, not evolution. A bacteria will always be bacteria.

**Resistance to drugs occur in its ability to ‘adapt’ its surface not to let antbotics enter in it, or its inner machinery to work in diferent ways as to not let antibiotics cause harm. **

**BUT! Bacteria will still be bacteria, and will not become virus or higher level organism. **

Also another tidbit, in the 19th century the mean normal blood pressure of the humans was considered to 90/60 but over the past 100 years we have evolved to the changed environment and lifestyle to have a what is considered a normal blood pressure at 120/80. If everything was part of the intelligent design, shouldn’t things have been perfect in the first place and remained as is?

**What is condsidered normal is subjective and not objective. Hope you understand that. And normal BP is still not 120/80. It is anywhere below 140 systolic and less than 80 diastolic. **

We DEFINE BP in terms of range. Not specific number. Hence, 90/60 still is normal BP.

And here is Dr. Michael Shermer explaining the evolutionary process of our eyes for anyone who might be interested:

"The anatomy of the human eye, in fact, shows anything but “intelligence” in its design. It is built upside down and backwards, requiring photons of light to travel through the cornea, lens, aquaeous fluid, blood vessels, ganglion cells, amacrine cells, horizontal cells, and bipolar cells before they reach the light sensitive rods and cones that transduce the light signal into neural impulses—which are then sent to the visual cortex at the back of the brain for processing into meaningful patterns. For optimal vision, why would an intelligent designer have built an eye upside down and backwards ?

It is because we evolved from sightless bacteria, now found to share our DNA, that we are so myopic. These are the same ill-designed optics, complete with deliberately “designed” retinal blind spot, through which earlier humans claimed to have “seen” miracles “with their own eyes.” The problem in those cases was located elsewhere in the cortex, but we must never forget Charles Darwin’s injunction that even the most highly evolved of us will continue to carry “the indelible stamp of their lowly origin.”

Either these scientists are themsleves confused or less likely, they are trying desperately to prove something they simply cannot and making people think that if they give example of eye structure they can make people who reject the evolution theory will be overwhelmed and accept the theory.

Here is why: No one said complexity of a design is is in favor or against the theory of evolution. Complexity is present in small bacteria or flagellate organism as well.

It is the change over time from one species to other which is not true and has never been proven.

Few commments on example off topic:

Actually eye complexity is benefical to human being. First, having upside down image has nothing to do with being not inelligent since braim processing makes it look the way it should be and same intelligent design did take care of the upside down image.

**Second, having a retina as it is, and fluid or other parts like vitrea, bran eye center give more stability to the eye and hence it can function over years with perception of depth, color and distance better than animals. **
Moreover, and you will love it.

Do you know if man starts walking upside down (head down), with time the brain will (theoretically speaking) process the image again to make it look natural as if everyone is “upside up”?

That is again adaptation not evolution.

**Still this whole debate does not prove if species changed over time. **

~If carbon is present in coal/diamond, it does not mean human which has abundance of carbon came from coal/diamond!

Richard Dawkins Explains Evolution of the Eye
Uploaded by blindwatcher. - Explore more science and tech videos.

@psyah

Peace Ranjhaa

It is highly deceptive of people to use adaptation genetic or otherwise to argue the case for evolution. Despite all the resisting that bacteria can eventually be able to do … it nonetheless remains bacteria - not only that but it remains the type of bacteria it was before the mutations - it is merely a more resilient form. It is like putting a whole lot of pale humans in a hot climate they will become darker and some of them will get cancer and die. The ones who got darker and no cancer will have offspring some of which will die to the climate and after many generations … the remaining people will be dark skinned. By treating many organisms as a single whole as we do with bacteria is a deception. The bacteria does not “adapt” to its surrounding necessarily. Many cells die in hostile climate. Others that may be variants in genetic structure survive, these normally reproduce and the result is a different type of the SAME creature. Not “adaptation” but “filtering” - when we become darker and lighter stronger and weaker we adapt because it is within our own lives. Next generation of the same type as us is not adaptation, it was only because those who died and could not reproduce were unable to do so because of the climate. The survivers did not learn from those who died. Adaptation implies this is the case - What we observe with bacteria is a filtering - it is natural selection. It is not adaptation. That goes for the blood pressure thing too.

And even if it was … when did one bacteria type become another? When have we seen a single celled organism become a multi-celled organism?

The eye is an amazing thing indeed. The question sounds absurd. If it is so unintuitive for the eye to be built up as it is yet still work then at any stage going by the process of gradual development the eye would not function and would have never evolved to the current state. It is upsidedown and backwards to make us realise that it had to be designed entirely as a whole. You cannot gradually develop the eye. Furthermore despite this illogical structure of the eye it is clearer than any camera, doesn’t fog up or give red-eye, adapts to various hues and gives a vision in a variety of angles at tremendous speed.

Evolution as stated i.e. when one organism becomes another is not a fact … Natural selection does occur, but this is not the same thing and although the theory of evolution utilises natural selection to attempt justifying that given enough mutation a species jump occurs it does not prove this in any way. Hence evolution is not fact - aspects of change, alteration, mutation, etc do occur these are not synonymous to evolution.

Yep!